This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheMediator
Actually, I'm not asking for your opinion on whether the death penalty is right or not, or the morals of it (sorry if that sounds rude, not intended to be, and again, a reminder that I'm from Australia, where we don't have a death penalty), I'm asking you, from a constitutional perspective, your argument suggests that the death penalty is unconstitutional. If it's not deemed to be unconstitutional, as demonstrated through use of it without being deemed unconstitutional by your top courts, then your argument is flawed.
Yes, I believe it's unconstitutional. Yes, I believe that any court that upholds the death penalty is misinterpreting the Constitution.
What he says. Just because it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet doesn't mean it isn't unconstitutional. Its like me rolling a die and not getting a 6 - just because I haven't gotten a 6 doesn't mean my die doesn't have a 6.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Finally, Hyper is basing his anti- death penalty beliefs off of nothing
You're calling the Constitution nothing?
- his has no current US legal theory to say that the US government got it wrong.
The Constitution.
Right now, people that are fighting against the death penalty argue that lethal injection is unconstitutional because it is cruel.
The Constitution doesn't mention cruelty once...it
does
mention
the right to life
.
However, it seems as if it is entirely painless, therefore it is very humane.
Again the Constitution doesn't mention humane once.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Something cannot be humane and be cruel at the same time, which goes against the Constitution.
Show me where in the Constitution is says cruelty is illegal.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already talked about the phrasing that you have mentioned and they have shot it down. It appears at the moment that everything will be based off what the states say is legal or not.
And my whole point is that this is NOT and issue that is delegated to the States by the Constitution. The right to life is delegated to each man explicitly in the Constitution.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
cruel and unusual punishments
All right. I forgot about that clause. However, my point still stands...where in the Constitution does it give permission to the government to take away someone's right to life?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The Supreme Court is the modern day interrupter of the Constitution, they are roughly the equivalent of the Framers of the Constitution...
Umm...no they aren't.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Where does the Constitution give the government the right to put someone away for the rest of their life, you are taking away their land?
No you're not. You can still own land in prison.
This ties in well with my previous post about social laws that I posted earlier this morning (if you read it then you know what I am referring to):
You clearly have never ever picked up a sociology book. I would recommend it. Things that are right and wrong are based off society's norms.
You've clearly never picked up a teleology book, I would recommend it.
See I can use the same arguments as you.
Post by
Squishalot
If it's not deemed to be unconstitutional, as demonstrated through use of it without being deemed unconstitutional by your top courts, then your argument is flawed.
Yes, I believe it's unconstitutional. Yes, I believe that any court that upholds the death penalty is misinterpreting the Constitution.
What he says. Just because it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet doesn't mean it isn't unconstitutional. Its like me rolling a die and not getting a 6 - just because I haven't gotten a 6 doesn't mean my die doesn't have a 6.
The suggestion, however, is that if it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, after multiple challenges over hundreds of years, it's generally assumed to be 'OK'. Who defines what is constitutional and not constitutional? As far as I'm aware, the High Court in Australia has that power, and is the equivalent to the US Supreme Court, I believe (last court of appeal).
Where does the Constitution give the government the right to put someone away for the rest of their life, you are taking away their land?
@Hyper - it's worth considering this point in seriousness.
My gf and I were discussing last night about the positives and the pitfalls of introducing a Human Rights Act into our legislation. One of the points in the International Human Rights Charter (or such document, not sure what) is the right to raise a family.
My point to her was, if someone has a right to raise a family, are you not implicitly removing that right by denying them sex while in prison? Or by removing them from their family to lock them in prison? Is that 'right', and would you be allowed to do that, if it infringes their rights?
How can someone's freedoms be infringed upon for the sake of 'safe community', if you have no proof/evidence that they pose a continuing threat to the community? The idea that you can lock a treasonous person up on the grounds of community safety is predicated on the presumption that they will act in a way that endangers society later. (Sorry for not mentioning this earlier, just considered it now.)
Realistically, shouldn't this result in a system where you provide for lifetime prison terms (for those who threaten society) and complete forgiveness (for those determined not to threaten society)? If we're interpreting the rights system as you suggest, that is.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Where does the Constitution give the government the right to put someone away for the rest of their life, you are taking away their land?
@Hyper - it's worth considering this point in seriousness.
Just about to start raiding for the night, so quick answer.
It all comes back to the hierarchy of rights.
Post by
Squishalot
Where does the Constitution give the government the right to put someone away for the rest of their life, you are taking away their land?
@Hyper - it's worth considering this point in seriousness.
Just about to start raiding for the night, so quick answer.
It all comes back to the hierarchy of rights.
It's not as simple as that, especially when enforcing a society's right to safety by locking someone up may endanger the lives of their family (who lose their breadwinner, sole income earner, source of food, shelter, basic necessities of life etc).
Hierarchy is all well and good in an ideal world, but we don't live in an ideal world, there are a lot of practical consequences of decisions. Have fun raiding.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
America is the most liberal country in the world when it comes to Freedom of Speech
I beg to differ, but only because of the much more extreme reactions that Americans (generally speaking) have to criticism about the country, especially if it's something that can be seen as being unpatriotic.
It's sortof like, you tell an Australian that their economy is being badly run, and they'll probably say "Yeah, can't trust bloody politicians to do anything right." Tell an American the same thing, and they're more likely to get defensive and question the credentials of the person making the accusation.
Post by
MyTie
I think he meant in a legal aspect.
Post by
Squishalot
He's criticising Hyperspacerebel's hierarchy of rights, based on cultural values, i.e. social aspect, rather than legal aspect. There isn't a legally defined hierarchy, as you pointed out earlier.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
He's criticising Hyperspacerebel's hierarchy of rights, based on cultural values, i.e. social aspect, rather than legal aspect. There isn't a legally defined hierarchy, as you pointed out earlier.
But neither is it socially defined.
As I said before it's metaphysical (in its very nature). Just like 1 is metaphysically more fundamental than 2, because 2 can't exist without refence to the unit.
Post by
MyTie
He's criticising Hyperspacerebel's hierarchy of rights, based on cultural values, i.e. social aspect, rather than legal aspect. There isn't a legally defined hierarchy, as you pointed out earlier.
But neither is it socially defined.
As I said before it's metaphysical (in its very nature). Just like 1 is metaphysically more fundamental than 2, because 2 can't exist without refence to the unit.
No it isn't. 1 is not
metaphysically
more fundamental than 2. 1 is
physically
more fundamental than 2. You have no idea what metaphysics is. Stop talking about it because you're hurting my head with your ignorance.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
He's criticising Hyperspacerebel's hierarchy of rights, based on cultural values, i.e. social aspect, rather than legal aspect. There isn't a legally defined hierarchy, as you pointed out earlier.
But neither is it socially defined.
As I said before it's metaphysical (in its very nature). Just like 1 is metaphysically more fundamental than 2, because 2 can't exist without refence to the unit.
No it isn't. 1 is not metaphysically more fundamental than 2. 1 is physically more fundamental than 2. You have no idea what metaphysics is. Stop talking about it because you're hurting my head with your ignorance.
1 is not a physical being therefore it can't be physically better than anything. It's a metaphysical reality.
Study metaphysics for 4 years, then call me ignorant. Until then, I really don't care.
Post by
MyTie
1 is not a physical being therefore it can't be physically better than anything. It's a metaphysical reality.
1 is a representation of a physical thing. Go pick up an apple. How many apples do you have? You have one. That is not beyond a physical understanding.
You say the dumbest things, then you defend them with nonsense. I hate argueing with you. It's worse than Laihendi. When Laihendi realizes he is wrong, he just calls you a name and leaves.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.